Obviously no-kyc Bitcoin in self custody is the only option, but if you're forced to choose between owning fully KYC compliant custodied Bitcoin or Bitcoin treasury company stock, what do you choose? Is there a difference? I think I'd rather own the stock.

He wins the Nobel Cope Prize.

I never said everybody is a shill. Clearly there are core devs who want this change. The ones who have been most vocal about it (e.g. Lopp) are shills, but many core devs just want to work on Bitcoin and are understandably annoyed by the controversy. If you've watched the various videos by Mechanic and still think no rational case for knots has been made, then you and I somehow came to the opposite conclusion. It's ok to disagree, that's why configuration options exist.

Another reason not to use regulated services.

"very technical" Always a favorite phrase of liars, scam artists, and grifters. It's the perfect little bit of FUD to simultaneously call into question one's own judgement and suggest that the speaker is a trusted expert.

Power to the people.

He's been pretty good on a lot of other stuff. This one is a huge disappointment.

#CoreCope

The cope from core is hilarious. You can't stand it that you aren't worshiped like you think you deserve, and people are choosing not to run your garbage. Keep crying.

This is why prioritizing miner incentives over node runners is a bad idea. We should learn from this.

Thank you for not using the typical wishy washy CEO speak that basically every other one uses, where everything they say is ambiguous, neutral, and safe. It's so refreshing.

As I understand it, the main core argument for removing the op_return limit is that miners like mara are benefiting from out of band payments from spammers using services like slipstream. This extra revenue source, separate from normal tx fees, increases mining centralization because spammers will tend to use the service of the largest pool, which then can use that revenue to get even larger. So core argues that removing the limit helps decentralize mining, which would necessarily mean a decrease in revenue for large pools like mara. So (theoretically) spam filters (i.e. op_return limits) help spammers (less need for out of band fees) and hurt pools (less out of band revenue). If this is true why are mara or other large pools not pushing back on this BIP. I think the reality is that core's concern about pool centralization are not genuine. They (some of them) just want more shitcoining on Bitcoin and both spammers and pools like mara are on board. If this BIP actually hurt pools via decreased out of band revenue then they would be fighting it but they aren't.

I should have said: makes life easier for shitcoiners. Theoretically it makes life harder for miners who will no longer benefit from out-of-band revenue they currently receive. Interesting that there's no push back from mara or other miners on BIP, seems like they aren't concerned about losing out on slipstream revenue. Why is that I wonder 🤔

The core dev logic of "miners will do anything for money so let's remove spam filtering" is asinine. Miners have the (short sighted) incentive to turn Bitcoin into another shitcoin. Node runners are a check on this incentive, and core wants to remove this check? Absolutely not. I'm not volunteering to run software at my own expense just because it makes life easier for miners while degrading Bitcoin as money.

The covid vax didn't even protect. It was so bad they couldn't water down the definition enough for it.

#CoreCope #RunKnots